Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I believe all editors should make a significant contribution to at least one featured article before being considered for adminship, and should make a significant contribution to at least one featured article (or single-handedly write a Good Article) per year or stand for re-election to retain their status. People interested in administrative tasks but not in writing content should be offered a separate status such as rollback privileges without blocking privileges. Checkuser and bureaucrat positions should be scheduled to expire and be rotated among trusted admins.
As a result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rajput (closed February 2006), my Misplaced Pages account is exposed to occasional outbursts of trolling by throwaway accounts. For this reason I decided to semi-protect my talkpage. If you are editing logged out or with a young account and you came here to make a good faith comment, please try to get my attention on the pertinent article's talkpage, or consider maturing your account with a few more edits first.
If you came here because you were told to, or because you read allegations about my position on India related topics or Rajputs in particular, on-wiki or off-wiki, do make sure you are familiar with the history and context of the case before asking me to explain further. I will only be prepared to discuss recent developments and not repeat my position on the events of the Rajput case of winter 05/06. For my basic position towards any sort of ethnic or cultural supremacism, see . dab(ᛏ)09:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
archive1: 19:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 18:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 04:10, 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 08:23, 19 Dec 04 /
4: – 09:31, 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 2:05, 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 09:17, 6 May 05 / 7: – 09:15, 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 08:17, 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 09:27, 7 Nov 05 / A: – 19:40, 13 Dec 05 / B: – 02:04, 16 Jan 06 C: – 20:47, 22 Feb 06 / D: – 22:26, 21 March 06 / E: – 05:54, 19 May 06 / F: – 06:07, 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 13:16, 9 Aug 06 / 11: – 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Have a good time
Thanks for your kind message; I appreciate your support. The truth is, I don't know what they want from me. I thought that arbitrations review a certain issue or set of articles, not the editor in general. Are they going to survey my 40,000+ edits with the intention of essentializing a few silly statements and ignoring all the rest? Well, we'll see. I try to give it as little thought as possible, although the amount of stress I get from editing these days is higher than ever. I hope that you are having a good vacation; sometimes it's necessary to forget about Misplaced Pages for a fortnight or two. --Ghirla22:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I myself had picked it up from that site. But as all such pujas are based on assorted mantras from various texts, I was looking for the origin of this mantra. I remember it well from a tape I used to have that contained "stuti"s of the navagraha, and this one was used for Chandra. Thanks for your help. deeptrivia (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Arabic
I get it now. I still haven't seen any evidence that hamza should be represented by a hyphen. I get a kick out of people using wikipedia pages as references to support their arguments. The fact that the Arabic grammar page uses it in that way means nothing to me.
Regarding the hamza, like I said on the talk page, any alif at the beginning of a word is actually a hamza. The alif is just a seat so the hamza has something to sit on. The hamza is only by itself when it appears at the end of a word, otherwise it always gets a seat (one of the three vowels). Usually the hamza is ommitted, along with all the short vowel markings. This is basic Arabic and I don't know how else to prove it to you than to say go grab an "intro to Arabic" book. You can also look at an Arabic Qur'an, which usually has every diacritic marked, and you will see a hamza above or below every initial alif. Cuñado - Talk03:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
FourthAve's ban timer
Per WP:BAN#Restart of ban duration when evasion is attempted, any attempt by FA to evade his ban should result in a reset, not just the fifth time. As a result, his ban should correspond to his latest sock evasion, regardless of how many times he's evaded it. The "enforcement" clause, if interpreted correctly, should only apply to bans under probation, parole, etc., and not to bans that cover the entire Misplaced Pages environment. (I'm sorry to bring this up this late, but I just noticed this and don't want to turn this into a threaded dialog. I don't intend to respond to any response you post.)
P.S. I also asked Tony Sidaway about this, and here's his response:
It's customary to reset an arbitration committee fixed-term ban to restart from the last point at which the subject made an attempt to evade it. The enforcement clause has nothing to do with it; he's banned for a year from the last time he attempted to evade the ban. --Tony Sidaway21:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
"I don't intend to respond to any response you post" seems a little bit less than polite. I said I was not going to pursue it in the first place. So 4thAve is banned for a year, that's fine. I'm still not forced to denounce him if I think I saw him about. dab(ᛏ)07:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Greek language article series
Hi, my old proposal (from June) regarding the reorganisation of the Greek language article series has been revived and there's now again a discussion ongoing. Much of it is just an exchange of old arguments, but perhaps your renewed input will help to find the best solution. Thanks! Fut.Perf.☼11:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments about the cats. And the article about the cat too, I love it. :-) But my request was rather about the main issue of how to carve up the articles themselves between Ancient and Modern Greek coverage, the thing I suggested back in June. There's now quite a lively discussion going on. Fut.Perf.☼17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, sorry, that discussion has somehow dispersed into several talkpages. Most is on the Talk:Greek language#Big restructuring needed? page, further up under the original proposal; details are being hammered out on my own talkpage and at User talk:Michkalas. Summary: I'm still after my plans from June and have started to assemble a few drafts in my userspace, but Michkalas and Peter Isotalo favour a solution closer to the present, where the main Greek language article contains the synchronic sketch of Modern Greek together with the summary links to all the other stuff. Fut.Perf.☼17:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That section's been altered since you worked on it; I just asked because the latest editor found the *wel- etymology in the American Heritage Dictionary, and seems to be about to eliminate the others since they're currently unsourced. Thanks for the info you provided; I'll look around and see what I can find. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was considered bad form and was written soemwhere that rollback was supposed to be used only for vandalism, bad-faith edits, linkspamming, etc. Is Bharatveer a vandal or bad-faith editor? Do I get to rollback POV personal opinions to my favourite articles? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg06:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Requested change in redirect for IPA from International Phonetic Alphabet to IPA (disambiguation)
Thanks for your comment. Your reason for objecting to the move was
per Duja, bad idea.
and Duja's comment included the question
Who of the supporters will volunteer to fix all the links to IPA if the change is accepted?
I thought I'd let you know that the links have been fixed. If this was your only reason for objection, you might retract your objection. If you have other reasons for objecting, you might add them to the discussion. Thanks again. --Karnesky21:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
Dbachmann, I am new to Misplaced Pages and I just created an account and some user just messaged me this. I am reproducing it as it bears your name. It's really bad. Swear words, etc.. I don't know what to do with this. Help me. Here is the message -
I hope you do something about the user. And why did he leave the message on my page ?
Hey dab, you have NO idea how happy my mother will be to know she is a grandmother!!! lol Thanks for pointing that entertaining revelation out. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for overwriting your edit on JRR Tolkien. I didn't get an edit warning. I see you already caught and reintroduced it. -- Jordi·✆12:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Gouranga
Hello Dab, thank you for your recent improvements to the Gouranga page, and your kind words on the discussion page. Please forgive me if I was somewhat belligerent when we first met at the end of last year. Hare Krishna :-) Ys, GourangaUK13:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
I'm seeing that your talk page has been vandalised recently by a variety of users. I am also a victim as are many other editors. These may be a single vandal like User:WoW with a lot of usernames. →Talk15:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You'll note the template is much smaller than the NI one. I think it's worth tagging the Category:Ireland articles with it, because there aren't very many, and it will serve as an invitation to people to join the Wikiproject. Evertype15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks like Hwair was moved] to Ƕ, but that page redirects back to Hwair. It was a nice article, and you were the last contributor, so I though you might like to know that something weird is going on... -emk (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
While replying to a message on the talk page of User talk:BostonMA, I chanced upon the following remarks by you: "... especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Misplaced Pages is not for them ..." :
I do understand that all pages belong to Wikimedia Foundation including the user pages and talk pages, and no one should be allowed to take shelter that exchange of remarks and interaction were in personal capacities. I denounce the extreme POVs explicitly and implicitly conveyed through the above remarks, and feel highly offended and annoyed at the same. They are especially sad (to use a mild word), as they emanated from the mind of an administrator of high standing like you. For the sake of good order, I shall copy and paste them verbatim at the village pump and other fora for a larger audience. --Bhadani03:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest you to please take up the matter with Wikimedia Foundation to take all Indian IPs indefinitely blocked: in any case, hardly 0.5 % edits of English Wikiepdia comes from India, and it may not matter!! --Bhadani03:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
nice try, Bhadani, this matter has been beaten to death several times over, I have commented extensively on this about four times over, and will not do so again, even if you are sad and insulted until you are blue in the face. dab(ᛏ)09:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Having come across the above extraordinary exchange, I feel that I have to speak my mind. I have read Dbachmann's original comments many times and all I could gather from it was the frustration of dab due to the actions of certain users blinded by Nationalism and regionalism. I didn't read any insult aimed at the '1 billion+ people'. In fact Indians should be rightly proud of providing Internet access to each and every 'sh*t hole'. Not many developed countries have achieved that. When User:Bhadani talks about the Project being more important, he should be at the forefront fighting the Nationalistic trolls. It is unfortunate that an experienced user such as Bhadani seemingly cannot see the fuller picture due to the glare of Nationalism. I personally have had many dealings with some of the difficult users dab mentions in Bhadani's Talk page and I know exacly how dab feels. Simply <aussie slang>spitting the dummy</aussie slang> and saying 'don't talk to me' is not going to help the 'project'.
I usually keep quiet during discussions as these to avoid being trolled but I would readily second Parthi's comments in this case. I was a close observer of the torture that dab had to suffer at the hands of some super-patriots in the Rajput article, against whom dab made his comments. I have followed dab's actions on and off for a few months and have never had any reason to question his fairness, culture or manners. Tintin (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
this is the sort of thing I have to put up with. random trolls calling me names. Some of them aren't even banned, I have no idea how the community can think it is appropriate to let me be bullied by Bharatveer and his peers. At this point, after all the good faith explanations I've given (e.g. . has Bhadani read this section?), I will simply not debate this. If I am to continue to protect and expand the articles within the area of my expertise, I expect the community to protect me from the kind of harassment that I am exposed to. dab(ᛏ)08:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I also endorse this take on the situation, thank you Hornplease. I do expect every good faith editor after reading this will be satisfied and assist the project to handle the influx of 'online illiterate' editors. I am thankful for inexhaustible patience and friendliness of our welcome committees and I respect their work. It is not my piece of cake, I do make allowance for cluelessness, but I do not take kindly to cluelessness combined with arrogance and aggression. Such editors will find me curt in pointing out WP:5P, and my position is that anyone unable to grasp these (5P) and WP:ENC should not be wasting my time. Misplaced Pages is also not a social club, and I am not here to make friends (although I am happy to say that I did). It is not a place to pamper people's national sensitivities either, and I am uncomfortable with all the "Muslim guilds", "Indian guilds" and "Irish guilds" that spring up across WP namespace. As long as they do no harm, fine: they benefit the project. As soon as these guilds are out to protect their national honour or whatever by orchestrating witchhunts against other editors, they should be shut down. I am here for detached and dedicated encyclopedic writing, and this is my right. I have always respected editors who took responsibility and adhered to policy, no matter how much I disagree with them. I have no respect for editors who just want to see their own group or religion or whatever glorified according to their own terms, without investing any encyclopedic work of their own. I do not think that I should be smeared on assorted user pages for this attitude of mine. Everybody is free to dislike me, and avoid interaction with me, but as soon as people begin campaigning against me, a line is crossed, and the community should stop them. I am encouraged by the support I seem to be getting from uninvolved community member, and my hope is that wiki mechanisms will work to contain this situation without myself having to plod knee-deep through bureaucracy to get protection of my simple rights per Misplaced Pages policy. I can take a lot of trolling without raising an eyebrow, but it is clear that should I feel left alone to fend for what is after all the interest of the project, I will not think it worth my time to continue at some point. dab(ᛏ)09:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Citizendium
Imagine people with actual degrees and teaching positions in Indo-European linguistics having the final say on IE articles. Are you moving over to Citizendium when it's launched? CRCulver14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
it's dangerous. it should be endorsed by Misplaced Pages, otherwise it will end up as just another smartass project nobody is interested in. I must say that I am fed up with being wikistalked by our resident Hindutva witchhunters. It is easy to clean Misplaced Pages of childish graffiti and ill researched misconception, but it is not worth my time to protect its integrity against this sort of orchestrated nationalist propaganda. So yes, if this -pendium thing takes flight, I might opt in. I take pleasure in disagreement with literate editors (such as disagreements as we might have had in the past), but I am not here to babysit articles against belligerent teenagers. dab(ᛏ)08:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's risky. On the other hand, we should give the project some time (half a year?) to take flight. I know what it's like to be wikistalked by nationalist trolls. This is a nice example: I made just one edit there and was instantly accused of sockpuppetry. In order to solve this single issue (in which I take no particular interest), I'd have to leave my proper paid job and spend half a day explaining; what about the other 3,000 entries in my watchlist?
I asked User:Mikkalai to interfere and he did; but those who run WP today are usually not involved in main space editing, spend 10+ hours a day buzzing on IRC, treat the project as a maiden aunts' tea party and dismiss active main space editors as expendable cogs. As the matters stand now, I see the most devoted contributors leaving WP daily: User:172, User:Pecher, User:Renata3, User:Worldtraveller, User:Giano, User:Paul August, User:Geogre (see here, here, and here).... Those who is still involved in editing feel uneasy, too. Probably a more editor-friendly project, with less reliance on non-editing bureaucracy, anonymous contributors and Pokémon-related articles, is not such a bad idea. Well, only the time will show... --Ghirla09:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It's unlikely that it will be endorsed by Misplaced Pages. There's bad blood between the chiefs of each, and already I've seen discontent among Wikipedians about this new project (with one problematic user known to us both calling it "treason"). At the same time, some people are rubbing their hands at the prospect of taking content from Citizendium and putting it in Misplaced Pages as is their right under the GFDL. Still, I plan to start contributing there, since I will no longer have to spend so much time RVing nonsense, and will finally have the leisure to start writing content again. CRCulver14:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the people who "run" Misplaced Pages hanging out on IRC and becoming a group separate from those who write Misplaced Pages is a serious problem. So far I don't see many ill side-effects, but it should be addressed, as it has the potential to take down the project. I emphasize that I think it is important to realize that the expendable people are those who do administrative tasks (anyone can RCP, block trolls and fix vandalism; it's a huge workload, and it needs to be done, but it doesn't need qualification). Competent editors, otoh, are the most precious resource Misplaced Pages has, and the community should make every effort to avoid these people being driven away. This really cannot be stressed enough. It is natural that the "keepers" of Misplaced Pages tend to overestimate the importance of their work, but it is important that they realize there would be nothing there to protect and administrate without our population of prolific and competent editors in each field. The sort of thing I am going through here is bad enough, and many other people would have left long ago. It is of utmost importance that things like this are prevented from happening to editors, even if it means clamping down and banning people with trollish attitudes on sight, in partial violation of the pure wiki principle. dab(ᛏ)16:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on my user page
Hi dab, thank you for your comments on my user page. You begin by asking "have I not now?" I believe you are referring to the lines where I wrote:
"I also suggested that the best course when one offends is usually to acknowledge that one has been offensive (even if unintentionally), to apologize, and to avoid taking on airs that it is those who are offended that are in the wrong. Dbachmann has chosen not to follow that course of action."
We may disagree, but in my opinion the answer is no, you have not chosen to apoligize or to avoid taking airs that it is those who are offended that are in the wrong. I understand that you are upset, and this may not be the best time to explain my answer, but I will try to do my best under the circumstances. In our discussion here, I felt that you repeatedly suggested that if I was bothered by your comments, that it was my own fault, you sarcasticly asked who made me the WP PC-patrol, and so on. It felt to me that you were justifying your course of action, rather than "apologizing and avoiding taking airs that it is those who are offended that are in the wrong". You even say as much in your comment above:
My comments are not offensive, and I do not have to apologize for their content.
Although it is not a question directed at me, I do feel obliged to comment on your next statement.
I did apologize for any unintended offence they may have caused, more than sufficiently, and I won't do it again.
I was not aware that you have apologized for unintended offence. I also find it difficult to reconcile your claim that the comments are not offensive and deserve no apology with the statement that you apologized for unintended offence. Perhaps we see things differently, but as I see it, "causing offence" and "being offensive" are nearly synonyms.
The only other point I will respond to at the moment is that in your edit summary, you write "this is just wikistalking". Could you explain what about my behavior you feel is wikistalking? Thank you again for your comments. Sincerely. --BostonMA11:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
you did present my comment out of context, without giving its background (my being exposed to serious abuse by the Rajput trolls, and its very definite application to that very definite set of people, making it sound as if I was talking about Indians in general), nor did you make reference to my repeated explanations in its aftermath. This is a clear show of bad faith, and Bhadani was apparently tricked into believing that my comment was indeed directed against Indians as a group. I do therefore blame you for consciously and unfairly smearing me on your userpage, either aware of the background and choosing to leave it unreferenced, or without doing proper research before accusing me. I will happily apologize for any behaviour I recognize as wrong in retrospect, but I will not apologize where I do not see myself in the wrong. People may still be offended, either because they choose to misconstrue statements of mine, or maybe because they just don't like my nose. You may not appreciate the difference, but I will not apologize for being alive or for using Misplaced Pages, even if you happen to be terribly offended by the fact. You came to my userpage, asking that I explain myself to you, with respect to a comment that I had already explained, in full. You were not involved at all, and you could just have read up the full history of the affair. I have nothing to add to what I said last winter. Instead, you apparently decided you had a right to impose on my time and make me explain again the exact same thing I had already explained. Just because you felt like it, maybe you don't like reading archives, maybe you like to be addressed personally, but by all appearances you seem to have taken it as a serious misbehaviour on my part to refuse to invest my time in repeating myself to you personally, just for your asking. I am sorry, but I see no rhyme or reason in such an attitude. If you are interested in the case, read the archives, it's all there, just like my comment itself. If you are not interested enough to plod through all the text, don't expect me to be interested in wasting time in giving you a live account. dab(ᛏ)16:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining your frustrations with me. I can see how you might feel that by failing to include background information that you feel important for a proper understanding of your comment, that I misrepresented you and "smeared" you. I know that I would be not be pleased by someone using one of my comments out of context in a way that I thought was contrary to what I had intended. In retrospect, it would have been better, had I mentioned on my user page that you believed that the context in which your comment was made, and the intent of your meaning were such that they should not be considered offensive. Had I made such mention, it is possible that our discussion would have been clearer. However, in my defense, you did bring up the context in our discussion, and I did have a link to that discussion near your quote.
You believe that I misled Bhadani into misinterpretting your quote. Bhadani is not interested in talking about you at the moment, so I will not bother him to ask his how he understood your comment, or attempt to determine whether he misunderstood it. However, I don't believe I misunderstand your quote, and I do believe that I have good English comprehension. Yet, it is my take that your quote is indeed an offense to all Indians. Borrowing something that I wrote elsewhere:
It is unnecessary to mention the nationality, culture or religion of editors when discussing edits. To gratuitously mention such attributes of editors in the course of criticizing edits has all the appearances of being an insult to those of the mentioned nationality, culture or religion -- it has the appearance of an insinuation that faults an editor may have are somehow related to that editor's nationality, culture or religion. Whether an insult was intended or not, civility dictates avoiding mentioning such attributes.
I understand that you meant to insult only a few individuals with whom you had an instense dispute. But by associating "India" with "clueless people", or when you speak of "Hindu gerontophilia", or "Hindu trolls", etc. you are not only attacking the specific people you intend, but are gratuitiously mentioning their ethnicity, nationality, religion etc.
I understand that you do not wish to explain yourself over and over. Please forgive me, for I am about to say something that will appear very arrogant. I also do not want you to explain yourself over and over. I have already read your explanations long ago. What I would like is for you to listen to others and learn and most importantly to change your behavior. Again, please forgive me for speaking plainly.
Hi Dab. Sorry to take up an issue that refuses to die. While I understand your frustration, and have tried to explain your case to the people involved (here, for example), I feel that you should've A'edGF a bit instead of presuming that Bhadani was a troll or a newbie. He is neither. He's nationalistic, verbose (like most Indians like me), but a good faith editor. In my opinion, you should say sorry to him just for presuming him to be a "troll". I know it may be difficult given the positions the parties have taken, but it would do good. Thanks. -- Sundar12:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the acknowledgment, Dab. My intention was just to set the records straight and if possible bring the heat down. It's OK if you both don't apologise to each other. Regarding your comment that I'd make a good mediator, let me say that a) I may not have enough time to go through an unfamiliar dispute and b) I'm not confident enough with my English language skills. -- Sundar06:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I can not but agree that mediation is a thankless job. Carry on with your work. I share your concern about editors leaving the project. I was always under the impression that community building and the framework that supports that are not at the cost of encyclopedia building. -- Sundar09:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi dab, we havent met b4, but the Bhadani thing has raised enough dust in the past few days on WP, to catch my attention. I usually refrain from interfering in things that dont concern me, but seeing the amount muck thats being thrown around, I couldnt help but comment. Afa i am concerned, Bhadani and co are just making a mountain out of a molehill. Infact, I dont see anything wrong in what you said. The problem here is that people are simply reading in between lines and drawing conclusions most convenient to them. Infact, being an Indian, I am a little embarrassed by this whole issue. Given the amount of uncivility around, you shouldnt even be apologetic.
I know this comment of mine will mean nothing to the state of affairs, but I thought I should let you know. Thanks.
Sarvagnya20:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
To quote you -"I do not take kindly to cluelessness combined with arrogance and aggression. Such editors will find me curt in pointing out WP:5P, and my position is that anyone unable to grasp these (5P) and WP:ENC should not be wasting my time. Misplaced Pages is also not a social club, and I am not here to make friends (although I am happy to say that I did). It is not a place to pamper people's national sensitivities either, and I am uncomfortable with all the "Muslim guilds", "Indian guilds" and "Irish guilds" that spring up across WP namespace. As long as they do no harm, fine: they benefit the project. As soon as these guilds are out to protect their national honour or whatever by orchestrating witchhunts against other editors, they should be shut down".
Is there not something that admins can do to influence the powers that be in wiki to look at tackling this ? Haphar10:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Out of India theory criticism
Hey dab...despite our disagreements I request a bit of editing help in the Out of India theory article. Despite your interpretation of my edits as Hindutva propaganda I would much rather the creation of an NPOV article about a theory which many Indians support. So, could you please create a Criticism section on that page and add anti-OIT criticism from the words of academics. I just request you to keep Hindutva propaganda accusations to the Political History section and to provide sources for every point you make, otherwise WP:OR may force me to remove some points. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk)23:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Dab, your statement on Kelly's talk was brilliant. Back to mainspace, I have stong concerns about the new article Ukrainian pyramids. Could you take a look? I believe the key words in the BBC story are: "tourism chiefs are keen to cash in and are already planning to open a hotel nearby". --Ghirla09:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Joseph and His Brothers
Hi, nowadays there is somewhat of a procedure to rate a novel as Top-important. You can rate it as high, and nominate it here, which is what I just did. Just wanted you to know my action is in no way a vote it shouldn't be Top-important. If you go there, please vote for some other novels as well. Errabee19:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with you that the current list is rather Anglo-centric. But The Tin Drum and The Sorrows of Young Werther are on the list, and The Magic Mountain is nominated. French literature is starting to get represented as well. As for Fandorin, I agree that the novels are very recent, and for that reason might not warrant Top-importance. However, popularity is also an issue; Harry Potter is among the list, The Da Vinci Code is nominated. With 15,000,000 copies sold and far more literary value than the Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter combined, there is a case to be made in favor of Fandorin. And if you look at the high-importance items, Fandorin would certainly be higher rated than most of them. Errabee08:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Koenraad Elst
I see you've left a message for an editor saying that "Elst is quotable as part of reasonable discourse". Could you expand on that, please? A writer with no major peer-reviewed publications and completely outside the university system is quotable as the representative of a particular viewpoint, and that with qualifications, and only on the particular field of study in which he academically qualified. At least that's my impression. Elst has been quoted often and in depth in places where he shouldnt have been, sometimes as the only authority, and it would be nice if we could have some consensus on this. Hornplease03:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You may be pleased to know that immediately following this request, I discovered this edit to a conversation I'm part of: . Hornplease09:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Elst is a long way indeed from representing anything like scholarly consensus (bruahah!). Nobleeagle is perfectly right that he is one of the "more quotable voices" arguing in favour of OIT and anti-AIM and what not. That is little to his own merit but a consequence of the circumstance that most people writing in this gist are a bin of raving lunatics and national mysticists. So Elst as an author who is not completely round the bend looks comparatively good, and if we do want to discuss the issue, he is about all there is to discuss. Yes, there is no alternative to clearly labelling Elst as a fringe author. My comment to Nobleeagle was intended to say no more: Elst may be mentioned as a fringe dissenting view without turning the whole discussion into a surreal joke. It will not do to portray Elst as anything else, or present him as the only reference in any context. dab(ᛏ)09:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I have seen before that you have been a stickler for accuracy on wikipedia and have spoken out against edits that you felt were junk science and non-scholarly. I would like to direct your attention to some crazy whack-job jingoists who are soiling wikipedia with nonsense claims.
The article Tipu Sultan has seen some edit warring with Tipu fanatics and editor with varying degrees of religious/nationalist jingiosm putting nonsense statements in it and touting them as fact. In particular is this laughable claim that Tipu Sultan is the "father of rocket science" (The TITLE of a section, no less; see Tipu Sultan#Tipu Sultan father of modern rocket science, absurd, absurd, absurd)!
The very claim that Tipu Sultan is the "Father of Modern Rocket Science" is laughable.Any reasonable person viewing this article would immediately see this claim for the absurd level of jingoism it touts. As a practising physicist, I find this statement so ludicrous that the only words I can think of to describe it are Wolfgang Pauli' famous
"NOT EVEN WRONG". It is pure junk science at it's finest.
First of all, the very claim that Tipu used "rockets" as weapons of war is unsourced and dubious enough to warrant a special mention in my professor's classes on spotting pseudoscience. I've seen the Doordarshan TV show by that Shahbaz Khan guy where they showed this rocket stuff and, even at age 12, I could see it for the nonsense it really was.
Tipu Sultan was no scientist and he did not have the background in basic empiricism that led the ancient Chinese to discover primitive rockets in the first place (and even THEY used it for entertaintment, not as weapons).
Even if we buy into this rockets crap, it would not be Tipu Sultan who get's the credit, but the minister or worker or somebody who figured it out under his command. Do we credit Eisenhower with being the "Father of the Atomic Bomb", or do we reserve the credit to Oppenheimer, Einstein, Feynman et al?????
To make this claim is, quite frankly, insulting to the years of experimental research work that led to the first rocket engines developed by Tsiolkovsky (the REAL father of rocket science).
I pointed this out in the talk page, but I fear that Tipu fanatics like User:Tipu Hero who's been mucking about in the article will respond with personal attacks like he has done before here. This section exemplifies quackery at it's finest that I have ever seen on wikipedia so far. Correcting this may require the intervention of a stern admin who has experience dealing wit h quacks and fanatics on wikipedia and I think you fit the bill perfectly. Please, please please have a look at this mess and try to reason with the parties involved. For the sake of wikipedia's credibility I beg of you.
With the help of User:Nobleeagle, I did a bit of digging and found out that crude rockets were, in fact used by the Marathas (I added some refs to the article) as well as by Tipu per some seemingly reliable sources, so I stand corrected about the fact that rockets were used. However, I still maintain that to call Tipu the 'father of modern rocket science' is plain absurd so I modified the article accordingly.Hkelkar07:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Funny, I've read similar things about the Yuan Dynasty, in a source that definitely appeared serious. They were said to have invented primitive rockets, flying machines, torpedoes and submarines, if I recall correctly. Sounds quite remarkable, but then, I'm a layman in the field. The Greeks apparently made several anachronistic seeming inventions, too. Florian Blaschke15:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
the "father" quip is misleading, I suppose, but per William Congreve (inventor) it appears that Tipu's exploits did indeed serve as a spark of inspiration for the emerging study of rocket propulsion. Not that I'm familiar with this, but this seems a case for toning down the hype without getting rid of such factuality as there is in the statement. dab(ᛏ)09:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I argue that this continuing harassment is sufficient reason to semi-protect my talkpage. I also beg concerned Indian patriots to appreciate that in the light of this campaign I am not disposed towards casual debate on their particular sensitivities. My position is simple contempt of any kind of ethnic suprematism and national mysticism regardless of where it originates. The present case just so happens to involve the Indian/Hindu variety of such despicable attitudes. I hereby state once and for all that my tolerance for such muddle-headed and aggressive self-glorification is neither greater nor lesser if it should originate from Europe, America, Africa or Asia. I am every bit into stamping out the corresponding "Western" mindset, viz. white supremacism and Neo-Nazism. The asymmetry stems from the fact that the latter is immediately removed from Misplaced Pages by a wide range of editors (everybody recognizes a Nazi) so that there is a much slimmer chance that I myself should come across any to deal with. The general tendency of greater leniency towards "non-Western" currents of ethnocentrism and supremacism in the spirit of political correctness and cultural relativism is Misplaced Pages's "regional bias" with a vengeance. Personally, I do not buy into this sort of relativism, and I remain disgusted by any sort of suprematist or fascist attitude, be it of Christian, Muslim, Hindu, White, Black or any other flavour. I do hope that this statement is enough to clarify my position and to reveal any allegations of anti-anything bias on my part in these matters as bad faith playing of the "racism (aka 'minority') card". The very concept of an encyclopedia is firmly grounded in rationalism ("Enlightenment") and it should be our collective aim to help stamping out the scourge of racism and ethnic or religious supremacism everywhere in the world by sheer encyclopedicity (that is, intellectual detachment and the will to look at the "bigger picture") dab(ᛏ)10:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think you are wise to deal harshly with ethnic/nationalist whack jobs regardless of their cultural or ethnic denomination. However, the same problem also applies to the ideologues of Indian Muslim Nationalism where users (sometimes with sockuppets) pollute articles with Islamist religious/nationalist bias.When exposed, they engage in some pretty nefarious ad-hominem attacks and, in turn, attack contributors, evoke ethnic slurs and use socks to gain the appearence of consensus. I am a little disappointed that this seems to get a free pass on wikipedia (and by no means am I blaming any particular admin for this) when it involves the uniquely Indian/Pakistani variety of Islamic Fundamentalism or muslim nationalism. Also, one must observe the distinction between a patriot, a nationalist and a fundamentalist. Being a patriot does not automatically make one a rabid fanatic. A patriot is never above criticizing his country or his nationality provided the criticism is constructive (as opposed to destructive and hateful criticism that comes from nationalists/fundamentalists from opposing denominations).I hope that you will keep this vital distinction in mind before you judge a particular contribution to be "supremacist" in any way.Thanks for your attention.Hkelkar00:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In another note relating to Hindutva, I recent read this article in which Witzel comes in agreement with some Hindus to include what you may call "Hindutva propaganda" in the textbooks of schoolchildren in California. Just on a non-wiki note it seems wierd that schoolchildren will grow up knowing this theory, which is largely supported by the inferences of authors you have described as "lunatics". Regards. Nobleeagle (Talk)01:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
"'invasion' will be replaced by 'migration'"? that's what we did ages ago on Misplaced Pages, what is your point? The only people still using the term "Aryan invasion" are the blindly furious "anti-AIT" crowd so fond of shooting strawmen. What did I call Hindutva whackjob propaganda? I am talking things along these lines. I honestly doubt something like this will be printed in Californian schoolbooks. That said, it appears that in a country where 'literal Genesis' may be taught in biology classes, it seems only logical that Hindu children should be taught 'literal Puranas'. Congratulations, everybody will be reduced back to their own medieval world of fantasy and prejudice. No reason to write an encyclopedia then, farewell and have a nice 21st century. dab(ᛏ)10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The bit I want to point out was the following paragraph which Witzel and the Hindu groups agreed on representing in class.
The Hindu groups say that more recent archeological and DNA findings debunk the theory and suggest that the Aryans were an indigenous people who did not invade. Moreover, say the Hindu groups, plenty of linguistic and other evidence indicates that Hinduism existed in India long before 1,500 B.C
His Hindutva troll comment on this page was not directed at you, me or Subhash. It was directed to this guy. I sincerely hope that Dab and the rest of the world hasn't made a stereotype on Hindutva-followers based on edits such as these. Nobleeagle00:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thank you Nobleeagle. I appreciate your efforts to give those alternative theories a fair hearing, it is often not easy to see the reasonable parts for all the childish propaganda. Still, it is not my understanding that the "Hindu groups say" part will be part of the curriculum. It is certainly true that certain "Hindu groups say" that "recent archeological and DNA findings debunk the theory". It's just that this isn't true at all. You can only talk of "debunking" if you had a grotesquely distorted understanding of the "theory" in the first place. These "Hindu groups" are just that, religious groups who prefer certain views for religious reasons, peace to them, but they certainly aren't historians, geneticists or archaeologists, so their claims are at best mythical thinking or tenets of faith. As long as their views are clearly described as religious, not scholarly, there is no problem at all (hell, Catholics believe that bread turns into human or divine flesh and then eat it. We can accept that, but we certainly won't portray this as biochemical reality). As for "Aryans are indigenous to India", that statement is neither true nor false because it isn't well-defined, to begin with due to the vexing nature of the term Aryan. Modern schoolbooks should do without the term altogether to avoid confusion. The religious term Arya, which always seems to be in play here, otoh has nothing to do with "indigenous". If "Arya" means "noble, pure" it is completely silly to say "noble people are indigenous / not indigenous to India" since "nobility" is not the property of an ethnic group and can occur anywhere according to changing social and religious standards. The statement in this case is completely empty, and nobody except for religious groups even want to talk about ritual or religious "nobility/purity" in the Bronze Age. dab(ᛏ)06:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I prize your opinion Dab. Would you please give some time to Rama? It should be at your wish, and at your convenience. Thanks.--Bhadani18:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on "Countering Systemic Bias in Religion"
Just to say how much I agreed with your neat encapsulation of the position in regard to Elst. There are discussions going on in relation to Bat Ye'or and other writers of similar standing to Elst on dhimmi, yellow badge and some other articles. I mentioned the dhimmi article before on Countering Systemic Bias in Religion but didn't get any responses. Itsmejudith14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
नमः पूवॉय गिरये पशि्चमादृये नमः,
ज्यीतिगॅणानां पतये दिनाधिपतये नमः
(Saluations to you, the presiding deity of the Eastern mountain (where the Sun rises), and the western mountain (where the Sun sets). Saluation to the Lord of the Steller bodies and the Lord of the day.)
My dear Mr. Dieter A. Bachmann, namaskar. In fact, I never required any apology from you. I am returning the same without any interest as I never felt that one was due from you. As indicated in one of my e-mails to Sundar, I had clarified my position: I may have perhaps over reacted. However, I offer my apology to you for disturbing your peace of mind. Like you and several others, I too believe that we should continue to focus for the work for which we have gathered here, all other issues are subsidiary to that primary issue. We may inter-act less or may disagree on certain points, but we always agree that there should be less bull more writing, and the truth never depends on consensus. --Bhadani18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Iman Wilkens
There's a discussion over at Talk:Odyssey about whether Iman Wilkens is an appropriate source for Misplaced Pages articles. Wilkens' thesis, as you might remember, is that the Trojan War actually occured in northwest Europe. Would you care to offer your opinon? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Heads-up
Just to let you know that we're having trouble with Bharatveer at the Bollywood article. The term Bollywood is given in Hindustani, in both Devanagari and Arabic/Persian/Urdu script, and Bharatveer is removing the Urdu. I and another editor have been putting it back. The editors involved in the Indian cinema project have been unanimous in wanting the Urdu if we're going to have the Devanagari.
Also, Shyamsunder edited the Dilip Kumar article to add an accusation that he was a Pakistani spy, which I also removed. The reference given was to an article saying that the charge was completely baseless.
Why, please explain, is the "Persian illustration showing Muhammad preaching" image relevent, or pertinent, to the section on the rejection of his message? It appears to be an image from many years later. --Irishpunktom\ 14:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Tell me
I want to know what is your reason of restoring image showing Muhammad preaching. Do you know Muhammad is preaching where? Early convert shown in the picture should be all very big names. Can you identify anyone of them? Tell me that what year the picture shows? Tell me anything realistic the picture have? Lastly tell me why it is necessary for the article to have that picture and what information it add in the article ? --- ابراهيم14:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
who said the picture was 'realistic'? Did you look at Ali, Moses or David recently? I think your concerns are entirely beside the point. It is my humble editorial opinion that it makes sense to keep the image in the present state of the article, and I made a single edit expressing that opinion, I'll not edit-war about it or anything. dab(ᛏ)14:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I never understand when people give other articles examples. If something is wrong in some other article then go and correct it. Instead of making that logic to propagates that thing even further. Most of the books about Muhammad are written without any picture (even by western scholars, may be around 99 percent). Agreed or not? Very few will have any picture of that sort. Then why wikipedia should have many pictures to represent a very small minority? Is wikipedia should not be written like a high quality book? Once again I do not understand what value is added by that picture? --- ابراهيم14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
there is nothing wrong with the other articles. It is perfectly alright to have all sorts of artistic presentations of David on David. If you think every image on Misplaced Pages needs to be 'realistic', it would be up to you to "fix" other articles. Per Misplaced Pages:Images, "Beyond the basics of copyright and markup, editors face choices of image selection and placement." As I just told Tom, there are reasons to remove images: if there are too many images on the article already, if the image is bad quality, offtopic, etc. I've never heard of "the image is unrealistic" as a reason to remove an artistic rendition of the article's subject. Let's face it, it appears that the only reason to remove this particular image are certain Sunni sensitivities, which, as you know, will not fly per WP:NOT. dab(ᛏ)14:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
As I speak truth hence I will not shy to say YES. It is those sensitivities and let be open/truthful with each other. But we both know that picture exist in other articles too. For example they exist in the Denmark-News-paper-cartoons article, there is an article named Depictions of Muhammad too. But there they do add something in those article and make some sence to exist there too. Why I am not removing picture from there? Are these pictures adding same kind of information in the Muhammad article? No, not at all. I can tolerate those picture if the reason of their existance is strong enough (like in other article). You know the person who had added this picture have added it with wrong description and link it with "conquest-of-Mecca". He was fighting really hard (revert one dozen time and get banned too) to keep the picture he had no idea showing what. Just like you tell me about sunni-sensitivites, I leave it on you to decide that why he really wanted to add that picture (he know nothing about)? The story of second picture source and description is not different then first picture. These people want to add (any) picture just for the sake of adding picture. Also read this (I know it is just a guidline and we may always ignore it).
"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
I know we get Islamophobic trolls on Misplaced Pages, I am not defending them. I just don't see how, seeing that there are two Shia depictions of Muhammad inlined anyway, already, how a third makes the matter qualitatively worse for a Sunni reader. dab(ᛏ)07:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I am against all of three and espacially two of them showing imaginary faces of Muhammad. I will continue deleting them too. Btw you have restored them 3 times according to my count. --- ابراهيم07:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
did I? over what time, half a year? I'd have to check the logs. I did a single edit yesterday. Also see my comment on talk, as long as we have no better identification of the image, I suppose we should not keep it after all. dab(ᛏ)07:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Since I am not able to find 3 revert hence I should be mistaken. Sorry for the mistake, it was not deliberate. You have not done it three time should be someone else that I took as you. --- ابراهيم10:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
There are already two images of Muhammad present. This one adds nothing. Its incorrectly placed also, and it does not reflect the vast majority of Artisitic traditions praising Muhammad, which tended to be calligraphic. The image clerly shows halos surrounding those in attendance, implying a major significance. I reason that the two in the Shia-like pointy caps are Ali and Abu Talib, but I've no evidence to support this. In fact, we know nothing about the image at present. Is that Fatima to the front, or is it Khadija? Its clearly not Aisha, but you wouldn't expect that in a Shia painting. This is irrelevent. The image is not about the Rejection of Muhammads message, and is not reflective of the majority of Islamic Art. The artwork presented in the Article presents Shia art significantly more than Sunni art, despite Shia being, at most, one fifth of the Muslim population. Thats wrong, and should be fixed. This image, on a, 8th Century coin from england, has the Shahada. lets include that. File:Offadinarrev.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishpunktom (talk • contribs)
that's a nice image, for the Shahadah article (but it is turned upside down). Yes, collect more calligraphy images, I would agree that three "Muhammad" calligraphies in three major styles would be better than three Shia images. But at present, we don't have those calligraphic images. dab(ᛏ)07:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding above new image in Shahadah article. But I have question (may be silly) about the description you have added. You said The reverse side reproduces the Shahadah, though the moneyer clearly had no understanding of Arabic as the Arabic text is upside down. I think it is possible that picture is taken wrongly and if we rotate it (not flip but rotate) 360 degree then we could correct it. Therefore your above comment might not be very correct? Btw also thanks for removing newly added picture from Muhammad article. regards --- ابراهيم22:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
hey dab
i thought that seeing as though User:Proabivouac wanted your thoughts on the issue of a source in the Muhammad as a diplomat, i thought i would come here and request that you take a look over the dispute and voice your opinion. Pbc (username it too long to repeatedly write) has been opposing the article on the grounds that it assumes what he believes is a positive tone. fair enough, the article however is based upon the narrative of well known secular sources like EoI, Watt and to a lesser extent Forward. Pbc has however declared that "sealed nectar" is not a reliable source and must be expunged from the face of wiki-earth. whether or not it is an independantly reliable source is arguable, we opened an RfC about that a month or two ago with opinions divided. what i think is undeniable though is that it is notable as a secondary source and notable for providing the muslim account/perspective where normal sources may omit or reject. much of the time when the sealed nectar is used it is done so under the pretense of "According to Islamic tradition". but anyways i am going on and on about that, do look over the talk page if you have time and chip in with some comments if you are able. thank you.(nice edit count btw, i'm not far behind!) ITAQALLAH22:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
good old Faucounau. maybe he and Wilkens can come up with a new book proving that the Proto-Ionians really lived in England. dab(ᛏ)15:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Even better would be if they both collaborated with Edo Nyland and proved the English Proto-Ionians actually spoke a form of Basque, and gave birth to all the world's languages... --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Recent edits on Indo-European
Hey, you may have noticed that Proto-Indo-European language, Indo-European languages, and Indo-Aryan migration have been recently edited to suggest that the "Out of India" theory (described as positing that "Vedic Sanskrit essentially equates to Proto-Indo-European") is a "main contender" or one of the "three main candidates" as an explanation of PIE origins. I'm not familiar enough with the literature to be able to dispute this and cite my sources, but I took enough linguistics classes as an undergraduate to know that this is crazy. Can you help? --Xiaopoℑ16:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I suspected as much, but I think I'd be yelled at if I removed the substantial sections on OIT in those articles without referencing it. Do you have any reliable sources that show it's what User:Morwen likes to call "cargo-cult linguistics"? --Xiaopoℑ16:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi again dab. Looking over Misplaced Pages I saw that the theory was almost indirectly described as a crackpot theory not worth mentioning or elaborating on, much like the opinion of Xiaopo above. Your comment on my talk page where you said you were ready to accept it as a reasonable alternative to the Anatolian Hypothesis. I do not believe that the OIT is mentioned on the above pages as the dominant theory, in fact, I personally have mentioned over Misplaced Pages that is is not accepted by many linguists but is supported more by archaeological evidence and textual references. As long as it is placed on a similar footing to the Anatolian hypothesis, I do not think there is any harm in presenting the theory and I think it is less harmful than downgrading it to the theories put forward by Nazis and the sort. Nobleeagle05:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, Nobleeagle. AFAIK, "Out of India" isn't even widely accepted among archeologists, and the adherents of the various Anatolian hypotheses are generally linguists. (To get an idea of the relative importances, check out Mallory and Adams's Encycopedia of Indo-European Culture.) I agree that there's no harm in presenting the theory in its own article. Giving it a lengthy writeup on the main Indo-European pages and portraying it as a "main contender" as an alternative explanation, gives it undue weight.
So, essentially, I think the articles should make clear what Edwin Bryant notes in The Quest for the Origin of Vedic Culture, namely:
It should go without saying that no serious linguist is about to reverse a century and a half of linguistic research to contemplate the proposal that proto-Indo-European was identical with Vedic, as some members of the Indigenous Aryan school might hope. (The Quest for the Origin of Vedic Culture, Oxford University Press, 2003. pp. 73)
OIT does not say that "PIE=Vedic", this is what the bulk of naive Hindu patriots (and I do not include Nobleeagle in their number) do not get. Elst's "semi-reasonable" OIT "emerging model" ("emerging" being a way of saying that nobody believes in it "yet") would mean that the Mature IVC was the home of Proto-Indo-Iranian, which isn't "Vedic". The Vedic period begins with the RV, which would date to later than 1900 BC in both OIT and AIM models.
Nobleeagle: yes, I said I would be willing to present OIT as a reasonable alternative on similar footing as the Anatolian hypothesis, which is itself rather fringy and mainly advocated by a single scholar. The solid mainstream consensus is that PIE has "Kurgan" origins in the widest sense (which themselves may be open to a lot of varying interpretations). Anatolian and a la limite Indian hypotheses may be mentioned in passing as minority views, not as "main contenders". Xiaopo is perfectly right in his point about undue weight. Since I know you are editing in good faith, why don't we try to strike an agreement here instead of us having to follow you around scrutinizing your every edit: an agreement along the lines that you are perfectly welcome to link to the full OIT article from all sorts of PIE topics, but not to present it as anything like a 'main contender' or widely held possibility. dab(ᛏ)12:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Look Dbachmann I have always regarded some of your points in high esteem owing to what seems to me are good-faith efforts on your part to introduce a scholarly perspective to wikipedia articles. However, I feel that this attack is uncalled for, as all of my edits have been well-sourced and in conformity with wikipedia policy. I cannot speak for other editors accused here but I have always been true to the principles of wikipedia. Kindly explain your position a little better and point to those edits of mine that you find "trollish". Thanks.Hkelkar09:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Talk 03:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
